Echo

Well Gemma has already admitted that she doesn't believe in pink dragons, and implied that those who do are "suckers."

She just won't tell us how she reached the conclusion pink dragons do not exist. I can't seem to get her to expound on this.

-=Vagrant=-

I admit, it was silly of me to ask about pink dragons. I should have asked if she believes in red dragons. An even better question would be this: "Do you believe in Shiva, god of creation and destruction? If not, why?"

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: -=Vagrant=- ]</p>

brighid

Echo -

It's a bit of a loaded question and I think that may be why she hasn't answered yet.

B

Synaesthesia

brighid,
The point of such questions is to elicit substansive discussion on the epistemic system. Why are pink dragons so obviously false while infinitely merciful god who created a world of rabies and AIDS is obviously true? Because our mummies and daddies tell us so? Because so many people believe it?

The reasons that the participants of this discussion believe in God are no better than the reasons to believe in Apollo, elves or the moon Goddess. .

To echo some sentiments that I once heard, when I first abandoned faith, I was shocked to find that I was missing out on hope of eternal life. As times goes on, I become more and more shocked that I ever believed on such transparently hollow grounds.

brighid

Synt –

I agree, the question when answered WILL lead to such things if Gemma gets around to answering the question. It is loaded in the sense that I believe she already KNOWS the answers to those questions, but won’t post them because they will contradict her previous statements. Sometimes it is not my intent to engage in substantive discussions that lead to an admitted conclusion by a theist, but rather to expose certain aspects of their thinking that are hypocritical. This is one of those cases. If she doesn’t answer in a reasonable time I will play out the scenario without her participation.

B

NumberTenOx

Samhain,

I think I'm with you (although I reserve the right to claim further confusion). Also you must understand I'm playing God's-advocate here.

First, saying that God is infinite and is therefore beyond logical understanding does not follow. The set of whole numbers is infinite, yet we have all sorts of ways of working with that infinity in useful ways (like, say, Calculus). Furthermore, we get great use out of the finite numbers (I think that was the point I was trying to make above - an understandable finite set of infinity).

Another analog is the universe itself. It may or may not be infinite. If it is infinite, we can never logically understand it. Does that make the universe "moot"?

Second, I don't think you're going to convince anyone that, because God is incomprehensible, it therefore doesn't exist. It's the old "made in its image" thing, where he/she/it has imbued us with the ability to glimpse the incomprehensible.

Thanks,
Ox

Samhain

Ox:

Perfectly reasonable.

The problem lies within common conceptions of "God
s" infinite or "omni" qualities. We would agree, that while we know what it means to be timeless (as many xtians hold that their god is), we cannot logically understand how a being could have no point of origin. So, as we can see, while we have an extremely vague grasping of what the word "timeless" means, we cannot apply it to anything and possibly concieve how such could be true. Other omni-qualities, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc., contradict each other and contradict themselves, therefore we can also see that these omni-qualities (which many xtians also hold to be true), if possible, are well beyond the realm of human understanding and logic. The ideas of these omni-qualities themselves go against logic, let alone applying such qualities to a being. In the following thread I explored how common perceptions of "God's" omni-qualities refute one another, and while my conclusions may be somewhat incomplete they demonstrate my point fairly well: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000170" target="_blank">The Injustice of Divine Punishment</a>. Here are my three conclusions for quick reference:

Now, as we see by the argument I previously presented, we cannot logically conceive the "omni" qualities together within any type of "entity" (note: omnibenevolence has little to do with this discussion, but was a result of previous debate on the matter; if you think the idea of "God's" omnibenevolence is widely accepted by the xtian community, then it further demonstrates my point). This argument does not even touch upon the idea that the omni-qualities, by themselves are self-refuting with other common conceptions of "God". Omnipotence: could "God" create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it? Omniscience: the idea that "God" holds a priori knowledge of all events conflicts with the idea of free-will. Omnipresence: can we even logically concieve this point?

Now, as we can see, "God" becomes a moot point because all qualities of "God" are logically contradictory (of course, if "God" transcends human logic, then, as I said before, the idea of "God" and "God"-worship and "God"-argument becomes a moot point for there is no way to possibly reference the idea of "God" himself).

Not quite. The idea of infiniteness (?) is not a logical contradiction. Now, if one is to say that the universe is timeless, we now can say that the point of the origin of the universe is moot. Now, extended to the "God" arguments, we see that not only is the point of "God's" origins a moot point, but "God" himself is a moot point because, while we may be able to define perfection, true and complete perfection within an entity (in the omni-characteristics listed above) is inconcieveable by human logic and reason, and therefore we cannot even begin to try and understand "God" let alone make any argument for or against the existence of such a being.

Those aren't my motives. I'm not trying to disprove the existence of "God" but explaining how the ideas of "God" cannot be percieved by the human mind, or that perhaps "God" is not worthy of the name

Edit: I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that disproving god(s) is not my motive for this thread. I guess you gotta crawl before you walk when trying to disprove the existence of the JC god.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Gemma Therese

Echo,

It's a bit of a stupid question and that is why I haven't answered yet.

brighid

Gemma,

It is not any more stupid then “do you believe in pink dragons.” Furthermore it only requires a yes or no answer as you either believe in seven-headed dragons and unicorns or you don’t. So????

B

Gemma Therese

[QUOTE]Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-:
[QB]I admit, it was silly of me to ask about pink dragons. I should have asked if she believes in red dragons. An even better question would be this: "Do you believe in Shiva, god of creation and destruction? If not, why?"

Because I am a Roman Catholic.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese